Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MJZ]

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO A TRULY COMMITTED ENVIRONMENTALIST.


HOUSE # 1:


A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.



HOUSE # 2:


Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.



HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker) Al Gore.


HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the environmentally conscious President of the United States, George W. Bush.


So whose house is gentler on the environment? This is yet one more story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC; or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it is truly "an inconvenient truth."

[HWYMAN1]

MJZ,
Great post. Funny how things are not always what they seem ( especially in the realm of politics!) john

[Midnight Rider]

Please see this for the complete story:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

In addition, this or any other story does not negate the absolute truths brought forth in the film.  Whether a person likes Al Gore or not, and whatever his personal practices, the facts in the documentary film speak for themselves.  It is alarming, to say the very least.

Further, it can also be proved beyond any doubt that the "Liberal" press is anything but.  On balance, the press is neutral, or in many cases, lean more towards the conservative side of the spectrum.  Anyone can pick and choose certain stories to support their position of believing the press is "Liberal".  It is simply not true.  In fact, when the presidential race between George W and Al Gore was going on, the "Liberal Press" actually was instrumental in helping King George get elected, by reporting the half truths of stories like Gore "invented" the internet.

I am also not defending Al Gore, but I'll have to say that I don't think anyone could have done a WORSE job than the man who has the job right now.  Apparently, a majority of the American People must think the status quo needed some shaking up, judging from the recent elections.

If the only side of the story you get is from The O'Reilly Factor, you're getting about 1/10th of the truth, and in most cases, outright lies.  It's always funny to me that the obviously right wing, ultra conservative "press" is so quick to point out the "liberal" bias of the mainstream news organizations, but never criticizes themselves or other obviously biased conservative rants.

If anyone is really interested in hearing both sides of a news story, I would recommend listening to NPR or watching PBS.  Generally speaking, they always present both sides of important and controversial news items. 

[SPIDERMAN]

MJZ,
 Funny how things are not always what they seem

I agree and everybody's got an agenda to push so the " facts " become a matter of what we are told they are I'm just a wee bit skepitcal of anything coming out of 1600 Pennsylvana Avenue these days. Maybe it's just me, but their track record on veracity is not good. As to the other guy, who really cares ?  Stuff like this post gives him more credit than he deserves. You know in today's PR world, it's not the truth that counts, but how much the issue is in the public eye. With the country still divided between Red and Blue, 1/2 the people will read the above post and believe it, 1/2 won't but the real issue is that Gore is back in the public eye. Stuff like this causes debate and he ends up being viable again because of it whereas before all this he was marginal. No matter who you support try to remember that bashing the other guy only gives him and his supporters the opportunity to get in front of a camera. The best thing you can do for the people you believe in is talk them up and IGNORE the other side. If no one's talking about them then the media has no interest in writing about them and they go away after a bit. Hillary is a candidate because the Republican right made her one in their constant bashing of her. The democrats don't talk about her 1/10 as much as her detractors do. Conversely, the RNC was headed to handing the nomination to McCain but Guiliani's supporters have talked up Rudy without talking down McCain and look who's leading the pack for the Republicans. Rudy made people forget about McCain because he didn't talk about McCain. Morale of the story is, if you want someone to go away, then don't talk about them. After a while they become a non person in the media and without press, you're dead.

Just my $0.02

B B

[Rhino]

I agree with AL.   Just do in the motorcycle emissions last.  I think we paid for the Texas Whitehouse upgrades recently, didn't we? How much did that cost US?

Rhino

[iski]

Oh, goody, a political thread!

Every board, every where, eventually I suppose......

After reading "Earth I'm Unbalanced" by Al Gore, I decided that his "I'm Incontinent, and That's the Truth" movie was not for me. Or maybe Al called it "The Truth for Me is Inconvenient"?

Any time any politician from ANY party uses a phrase including "truth" it is much better to watch what they DO, and not what they SAY they do.

[RedDevil]

To quote an anonymous source:  "How is the world ruled and wars started?  Politicians tell lies to the press and then believe what they read."
Just my view on politicians...no matter what the party, they're still politicians.
Cheers ,
 

[Coolbreeze]

To quote an anonymous source:  "How is the world ruled and wars started?  Politicians tell lies to the press and then believe what they read."
Just my view on politicians...no matter what the party, they're still politicians.
Cheers ,
 

That is propbably the single most truthful and poignant thing I have heard or read for many years.  Thank you.  You are now my philosopher of the year...

[SPIDERMAN]

Oh, goody, a political thread!

Every board, every where, eventually I suppose......

After reading "Earth I'm Unbalanced" by Al Gore, I decided that his "I'm Incontinent, and That's the Truth" movie was not for me. Or maybe Al called it "The Truth for Me is Inconvenient"?

Any time any politician from ANY party uses a phrase including "truth" it is much better to watch what they DO, and not what they SAY they do.

So what should we infer from this post ?   That 35 posts in you're telling the rest of us what we can and can't discuss ?

B B

[iski]

So what should we infer from this post ?   That 35 posts in you're telling the rest of us what we can and can't discuss ?

B B

Where did I say that?

Perhaps you enjoy placing words that are not there in other poster's posts?

[SPIDERMAN]

Interesting thing the English language. When writing it, it requires the use of puncuation to convey to the reader one's intent. If a question is being asked, the sentence is ended in a question mark. Questions are usually answered by statements ending in a period as opposed to another question mark.

I asked a question Dude. What was the intent of your comment about this being a political thread ?

B B

[iski]

You did not answer my questions, yet you expect an answer to yours, when it is already in my first response in this thread.

Weird.

[Ceej]

Call me a moderate, indecisive or middle of the road, But I detest the DNC and RNC right now. Both parties are corrupt because the system is corrupt. No way in heck Teddy Kennedy or Robert KKK Byrd, molesting scum Foley, $90,000 in the freezer Jefferson or many others in office should be in office let alone reelected. But since the system is screwed up it won't change til there's a viable third party. That said, letting these sell out scumbags dictate policy is a joke. The people of this country want immigration reform and believe illegal alien is just that - illegal, so says poll after poll - yet our government refuses (Dem or Rep) refuse to deal with it - heck they're getting ready to let tens of thousands of Mexican truckers to roam the country freely next month without even a background check or drug test.

So when one of them, Al Gore in this case, says the earth is warming, I question his motives.  Since the first reliable temp data available -1880-til now earths temp rose 1 degree - Yeah but Al remember the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's? in fact 1940-1980 the earths temp fell each of 4 decades in a row - in the 70's there were impending Ice age warnings from guys like Al - not global warming!

Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's Moon Triton, Saturn, even the non planet Pluto are showing warming signs also, Most more extreme than here on earth. So Maybe we should call it Galactic Warming, not sure what would cause that, these planets don't all have cars and factory's in common, - Though I hear there may be a Martian HOG chapter starting soon.

Have ya heard? Arctic Ice sheets appear to be growing thicker, steadily since 1993 according to 2006 studies that aren't being reported very widely (heck some sources blame this on global warming too), underwater volcanic activity is being discovered that could be raising the ocean temps.

I don't know about global warming, but todays cars are way cleaner than those of the 40's, todays factories are cleaner, todays oil wells cleaner and safer, nuclear power cleaner and safer, oil and gas cleaner etc. etc. etc....so if we caused it, it didn't happen overnight todays enviroment is probably related to the actions of our grandparents. So our actions today will improve the world for our grandkids. It will be ok, I hope, and I'll do my part, and I believe in the goodness of my fellow man, as long as he's not a congress-man.

 

[Travelinshoes]

If anyone is really interested in hearing both sides of a news story, I would recommend listening to NPR or watching PBS.  Generally speaking, they always present both sides of important and controversial news items.

I'm not trying to start an altercation here, but were you kidding when you said this? 

T

[SPIDERMAN]

You did not answer my questions, yet you expect an answer to yours, when it is already in my first response in this thread.

Weird.

Hang around awhile, it'll get a lot more weird than this believe me. And don't be so sensitive. I was just seeing if I could pick on a newbie without gettin my hand slapped by a Mod. Nothing personal, you were the first newbie I came across yesterday. Now you're a Jr and open season, so it's not as much fun. Welcome to the site.

B B

[iski]

Hang around awhile, it'll get a lot more weird than this believe me. And don't be so sensitive. I was just seeing if I could pick on a newbie without gettin my hand slapped by a Mod. Nothing personal, you were the first newbie I came across yesterday. Now you're a Jr and open season, so it's not as much fun. Welcome to the site.

B B

LOL.  Politics and religion always get weird on boards - part of the turf.

Sooooo now I know the best way to get on double secret probation here. Newbies = closed season. On another board far, far away I was usually on triple super secret probation since I was a moderator and decided to stalk myself.  Long story.  But really, I'm not sensitive.  Especially about politics and nutso politicians from any party.

Cheers!

[MJZ]

I'm not trying to start an altercation here, but were you kidding when you said this? 

T

Hey T, I was wondering the same thing. I think the lack of an answer was the answer. NPR & PBS, fair and balanced?
I know of no more liberal conduits for biased reporting.

[SPIDERMAN]

Hey T, I was wondering the same thing. I think the lack of an answer was the answer. NPR & PBS, fair and balanced?
I know of no more liberal conduits for biased reporting.

Sorry, I gotta ask I can't help myself    And Fox News is what ??

B B

[MJZ]

Big B, you know the answer to that. IMO they are as far off the mark to the right as the above mentioned are to the left. I am somewhere right of Attila the Hun but even I could not say Fox is really fair and balanced, with a straight face.

[SPIDERMAN]

Big B, you know the answer to that. IMO they are as far off the mark to the right as the above mentioned are to the left. I am somewhere right of Attila the Hun but even I could not say Fox is really fair and balanced, with a straight face.

Nothing wrong with where you stand dude, just so long as you know where the left, right and middle really are. Thanks for the post

B B

PS
    My company delivered a brand new Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer to the Navy recently and it showed up in San Diego last week. I went aboard yesterday. I love the smell of a brand new Weapon of Mass Destruction. 

[MJZ]

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

[Midnight Rider]

I'm not trying to start an altercation here, but were you kidding when you said this? 

T

I'm not going to get in a pissing contest over any of this, but people tend to listen to what they want to hear.  My point is that generally speaking, the one hour news reporting on PBS tends to present both sides of any controversial news story, and what is even more amazing is they actually let the people say what they want to say without interuption by the host who's also not foaming at the mouth if he/she doesn't agree with their position.

And the entire Global Warming trend is not an Al Gore agenda just because he is presenting the case backed by actual science and statistics.  Are parts of the film critical of the present administration?  Yes.  Does that make it a political documentary?  No.

The fact of the matter is if you are right wing, you (you is meant in general terms and not specific to anyone here) tend to discount anything said by what you perceive to be anyone left of your position.  The same can be said of those who are left wing. 

Sociology/Psychology 101

To make a blanket statement that mainstream news organizations, in GENERAL, are "liberal" is just simply not true.  In depth statistical analysis of news reporting supports this statement, and not reactionary "feelings" just because they are saying something you don't want to hear, or does not fit with your model of how the world works.

I just think people should keep an open mind, that's all.  Tunnel vision allows no other viewpoints.

[Talon]

What do they allways tell you, don't talk about politics or religion!!! What the heck!! The way I look at it neither side is really working for us, they both have to many special interest groups paying their way! As far as the media, they are the same way too, both sides have their own garbage spewing favorites.

One thing you can't dispute, pumping millions of tons of pollutants into the air and water isn't good!! But like many other high profile political activist, they need to clean up their own back yard before the tell everyone how to live, but thats politics!

Government needs to start working for the people the supposedly reperesent! They need to break down that partisanship and work together, not be so happy when the other side does something wrong, because they both do things that are wrong, and it reflects on them all and they don't get much done the way things are going!!!!
                                                            Ok, I feel better now!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                                       
 

[harleyteam]

fortunatly for me,  I was born with arms,,  not wings.  so I guess that puts me in the middle.

[PHAZE]

MJZ, can't you cut Gore a little slack?  Give him some credit for inventing the internet.  I think he's already working on the next big thing - his butt.  Al's getting bigger than the World Wide Web.  He's got a face like a jack-o'-lantern.

[Travelinshoes]

   I'm not going to get in a pissing contest over any of this, but people tend to listen to what they want to hear.  My point is that generally speaking, the one hour news reporting on PBS tends to present both sides of any controversial news story, and what is even more amazing is they actually let the people say what they want to say without interuption by the host who's also not foaming at the mouth if he/she doesn't agree with their position.

And the entire Global Warming trend is not an Al Gore agenda just because he is presenting the case backed by actual science and statistics.  Are parts of the film critical of the present administration?  Yes.  Does that make it a political documentary?  No.

The fact of the matter is if you are right wing, you (you is meant in general terms and not specific to anyone here) tend to discount anything said by what you perceive to be anyone left of your position.  The same can be said of those who are left wing.

Sociology/Psychology 101

To make a blanket statement that mainstream news organizations, in GENERAL, are "liberal" is just simply not true.  In depth statistical analysis of news reporting supports this statement, and not reactionary "feelings" just because they are saying something you don't want to hear, or does not fit with your model of how the world works.

I just think people should keep an open mind, that's all.  Tunnel vision allows no other viewpoints.
   

I got ya on that.  I just disagree that's all.  You're entitled to your opinion.  However, PBS by their own admission is liberal and does have an agenda.  That's why their funding got cut off.  I hate to break the news, but most media is liberal...and I really don't care.  Fox does lean right....and I really don't care.  But I think I can see them for what they are.  I guess that is a blanket statement and by even the media's estimate it simply IS true.  And as far as the "global warning" stuff goes.  I remember in 1974 when the same dude said that we were entering an ice age.  And just as many scientists say that this current crowd is wrong.  I'm from Tennessee and I can tell you that Big Al is NOT the guy who the global warming crowd should use for a front.  At least not in Tennessee, cause we know about him.  When you don't even carry your home state, the rest of the country should ask themselves or a Tennessean why.  Of course, this is just my opinion for as little as it's worth.

[PHAZE]

FOX only looks to lean right because everyone else is so far left (IMHO). 

[MJZ]

I got ya on that.  I just disagree that's all.  You're entitled to your opinion.  However, PBS by their own admission is liberal and does have an agenda.  That's why their funding got cut off.  I hate to break the news, but most media is liberal...and I really don't care.  Fox does lean right....and I really don't care.  But I think I can see them for what they are.  I guess that is a blanket statement and by even the media's estimate it simply IS true.  And as far as the "global warning" stuff goes.  I remember in 1974 when the same dude said that we were entering an ice age.  And just as many scientists say that this current crowd is wrong.  I'm from Tennessee and I can tell you that Big Al is NOT the guy who the global warming crowd should use for a front.  At least not in Tennessee, cause we know about him.  When you don't even carry your home state, the rest of the country should ask themselves or a Tennessean why.  Of course, this is just my opinion for as little as it's worth.

Dead on nailed perfect! I'm also from Tennessee and I have known of little Al back when he was big Al's goofy pudgy wimp prep school kid. Born with a platinum spoon up his rear. His dad was a big time national political powerful force and little grew up learning from the best.
Hmmmm, want to know what I really think?

[iski]

Politically many people think they are "moderate."  Die hard far left wingers and far right wingers will tell you that they are middle of the roaders and wonder what the hell is wrong with you that you do not agree with them.  Nothing here aimed at any poster - just general comments on the topic at hand.

The majority - those who are in the middle politically but usually have a mix of sorts of the left/right positions re:politics - tune it out sometimes.  Media outlets abound with opinions left as well as right and people clamor how this one or that one is better than the other one when at the root, most of them are about ratings and ad revenue.  I find NPR and Fox to be good news sources for their partisan (biased) views they tend to represent.  Better to get both sides of a story than one to sort out one's own version of the truth.  Of course both have fans that say they present both sides and yadda yadda & this is no attempt to convince anyone otherwise.  We choose what we choose for reasons we choose.

As to Global Warming - I am strongly pro-Global Warming. Do everything I can to increase it.  Freezing the Earth is not anything I wish to contribute to, so I figure its better to warm the place up as much as possible.  Each tank of gas in the bike means more carbon footprint for me I suppose, so there is a certain satisfaction after a ride in that even.  I am considering working on a project to place a temp. regulating thermostat on the sun and hope soon to acquire a few spare millions of federal funding to study the idea.  No, not really.  But its not that bad an idea....hmmmmmmmm.

[SPIDERMAN]

There isn't a single politician on the National Stage that cannot be ripped by real truths, 1/2 truths and innuendo. George W Bush being a case in point. The proof of his total incompetence was evident in everything he had ever done until Carl Rove got involved with him. But one thing the Republican party is better at than the Democrats is getting their smear campaigns in high gear first, so the Democrats are always on the defensive. The point being, we vote for office holders for all the wrong reasons. We want them to represent our common welfare, but we also want them to be role models. You won't find more than one or two role models in all of National Politics and most of them fall short in other areas far more important to being President of the United States of America. Case in point - - - Jimmy Carter Beyond dispute, the most moral and decent human being ever to hold the office in the past 100 years or so. BUT, Carter's lack of will in dealing with Iran decisively, his disastrous econmic policies all lead to an ineffective presidency. I won't presume to tell anyone who to vote for, but I will say that if the candidate's personal life is the biggest influencer of your vote, you will at some point be as disappointed in your vote as many who supported George W. Bush must be at this point. Most importantly however, look to the type of people your candidate surrounds themself with. This president's biggest downfall has been the incompetancy of at least 2/3rds of his staff.

Just my $0.02

B B   

[Hoist!]

Politically many people think they are "moderate."  Die hard far left wingers and far right wingers will tell you that they are middle of the roaders and wonder what the hell is wrong with you that you do not agree with them.  Nothing here aimed at any poster - just general comments on the topic at hand.

The majority - those who are in the middle politically but usually have a mix of sorts of the left/right positions re:politics - tune it out sometimes.  Media outlets abound with opinions left as well as right and people clamor how this one or that one is better than the other one when at the root, most of them are about ratings and ad revenue.  I find NPR and Fox to be good news sources for their partisan (biased) views they tend to represent.  Better to get both sides of a story than one to sort out one's own version of the truth.  Of course both have fans that say they present both sides and yadda yadda & this is no attempt to convince anyone otherwise.  We choose what we choose for reasons we choose.

As to Global Warming - I am strongly pro-Global Warming. Do everything I can to increase it.  Freezing the Earth is not anything I wish to contribute to, so I figure its better to warm the place up as much as possible.  Each tank of gas in the bike means more carbon footprint for me I suppose, so there is a certain satisfaction after a ride in that even.  I am considering working on a project to place a temp. regulating thermostat on the sun and hope soon to acquire a few spare millions of federal funding to study the idea.  No, not really.  But its not that bad an idea....hmmmmmmmm.

Good one iski! Gotta love it! Hoist!

[iski]

Good one iski! Gotta love it! Hoist!

Hoist, the anti-Global Warming people are trying to freeze us to death in the dark, and make us feel guilty about it at the same time.  Reminds me of nagging nincompoops who talk about stuff but do so very little about it except complain loudly and expect others to do something but not them.

Sometimes I not only take the long way there on the bike, I ride a few extra miles and then back just to get those greenhouse gasses up in the atmosphere in greater numbers. 

Thanks - on this one I am not joking.  Being pro-Global Warming is a serious way to have a helluva lotta fun.

[CVOJOE]

This sort of explains Al The Bore Gore doesn't it ? http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/president-al-gore-p1.php

[Hoist!]

Hoist, the anti-Global Warming people are trying to freeze us to death in the dark, and make us feel guilty about it at the same time.  Reminds me of nagging nincompoops who talk about stuff but do so very little about it except complain loudly and expect others to do something but not them.

Sometimes I not only take the long way there on the bike, I ride a few extra miles and then back just to get those greenhouse gasses up in the atmosphere in greater numbers. 

Thanks - on this one I am not joking.  Being pro-Global Warming is a serious way to have a helluva lotta fun.

I agree, and add "pro-ozone hole too! It's really fun to piss off all the tree huggers too! Hoist!

[Talon]

Yea, but ISKI, living in Tallahassee, I'd watch what you wish for, ice melts, you'll be under water!!! Good here in Colorado, I'll have water front property!!!

[iski]

Pro-Ozone hole!  A new idea worthy of support.

My buddies will enjoy that one.  Trre huggers.......reminds me, I need to do something with that extra trunk full of spotted owls.......

[iski]

Yea, but ISKI, living in Tallahassee, I'd watch what you wish for, ice melts, you'll be under water!!! Good here in Colorado, I'll have water from property!!!

Talon - I live in the northern part of the state, and figure in the southern 3/4 goes underwater, the ocean will be a shorter ride than it is now. 

Maybe you could begin growing some palm trees in Colorado?  The Rocky Mountains might become a coconut grove also.  Lots and lots of positives to consider.

[Talon]

  In Colorado!! Better get planting!!!

[Midnight Rider]

Please do not confuse a journalist's personal political leanings with what he/she reports.  I think Bill Clinton would dissagree with anyone who would say that the "press" is liberal in it's reporting of news, otherwise attempts would never have been made to impeach him for getting a BJ. (If you consider Bill Clinton to be a "liberal", would not the "liberal press" have made some attempt to downplay that story?).

The press is ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT, thank God.  Authority NEEDS to be questioned constantly.  That is one of the very foundations on which this country was founded.  It (the press) asks questions, regardless of political affiliation.  Statistical analysis of new stories, both in print and  broadcast media, simply and unequivocably support the statement that the press is NOT liberal.  Those are facts, not beliefs.  Most mainstream news organizations in this country are owned, in fact, by conservatives.  Some 55-60% of reporters, by predominant methodology of determining political/social attitudes, are on the liberal side of the fence.  Again, that does not mean their reporting is automatically liberal.  One does not, by necessity, lead to the other.  Most editorial comments in the major news publications are, in fact, conservative in their opinions.


By the way...George W. Bush is a f'ing moron...

[Hoist!]

Like everything else, they're in business. They sell their advertising and subscriptions. They twist things anyway they'd like just to create controversy and increase sales. Wishy-washy, out-of-context takers, sometimes outright liars. FTPress! I don't believe most of what I read or hear or take it with a grain of salt. They all have their own agendas! And it's not so we hear the truth! Most people can't handle the truth!!! It's to sell papers! Hoist!

[Crawdaddy]

  I think Bill Clinton would dissagree with anyone who would say that the "press" is liberal in it's reporting of news, otherwise attempts would never have been made to impeach him for getting a BJ. (If you consider Bill Clinton to be a "liberal", would not the "liberal press" have made some attempt to downplay that story?).

Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a BJ.  He lied to the court.

[Midnight Rider]

Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a BJ.  He lied to the court.

Point taken, but he should never have been asked the question, IMO.  The whole thing was a witch hunt.  And he was not impeached, either.

[SPIDERMAN]

Try as I might, I can't get this thread to move to the positive. The country needs real leadership. We have a Presidential election in 18 months. Please state who you support and your reasons for supporting that person WITHOUT knocking anyone else. I for one will not respond in the negative. OK, I'll start

I personally support Rudy Guiliani. Why? Because of his stewardship of the City of New York from the brink of bankruptcy. Because of his tough on crime stance. Because of his leadership during the 9/11 crisis.  And perhaps most importantly because he does not toe the party line on every issue. Govenor Swarztzenegger is proving himself to be a very capable leader for many of the same qualities. If anyone disputes these qualities as regards Rudy Guiliani, please do so without trashing the man. Like him or not, I personally believe he's earned at the least respect.

Thanks
            B B

[Hoist!]

Try as I might, I can't get this thread to move to the positive. The country needs real leadership. We have a Presidential election in 18 months. Please state who you support and your reasons for supporting that person WITHOUT knocking anyone else. I for one will not respond in the negative. OK, I'll start

I personally support Rudy Guiliani. Why? Because of his stewardship of the City of New York from the brink of bankruptcy. Because of his tough on crime stance. Because of his leadership during the 9/11 crisis.  And perhaps most importantly because he does not toe the party line on every issue. Govenor Swarztzenegger is proving himself to be a very capable leader for many of the same qualities. If anyone disputes these qualities as regards Rudy Guiliani, please do so without trashing the man. Like him or not, I personally believe he's earned at the least respect.

Thanks
            B B

Before whipping the city into shape after it was destroyed by previous stewardships, he was instrumental in bringing the mob to its knees here too as a Federal Prosecutor! He bucked the system and changed parties when he refused to support the Governor in an election. That guy has balls and will stick to his guns. He was a NYer that only wanted what was best for the city. He'll do the same for the country. His handling of the events of 9/11 are almost unprecedented by a politician. Most would have gone running away and handled things remotely or let an Aide do it. I wasn't crazy about some of his agendas, but he was singlehandedly the best thing to happen to NYC in recent times! There's only one candidate for President as of now and that's RUDY!!! Hoist!

[Midnight Rider]

Try as I might, I can't get this thread to move to the positive. The country needs real leadership. We have a Presidential election in 18 months. Please state who you support and your reasons for supporting that person WITHOUT knocking anyone else. I for one will not respond in the negative. OK, I'll start

I personally support Rudy Guiliani. Why? Because of his stewardship of the City of New York from the brink of bankruptcy. Because of his tough on crime stance. Because of his leadership during the 9/11 crisis.  And perhaps most importantly because he does not toe the party line on every issue. Govenor Swarztzenegger is proving himself to be a very capable leader for many of the same qualities. If anyone disputes these qualities as regards Rudy Guiliani, please do so without trashing the man. Like him or not, I personally believe he's earned at the least respect.

Thanks
            B B

B B...I respect the man, but unfortunately it's too early for me to know his position on things important to me personally, and the direction he wants to take the country.  As a general rule, I do not support the Republican platform or their political/social agenda.  That is not meant as a negative comment, but as an idealogical one.  The field of candidates is too broad at the moment for me to make an informed comment on any of them.  I generally wait 'till they cull themselves with foot in mouth disease before I start seriously looking at who's left.  Moving up to the presidential level in political races often requires good men to compromise their integrity and questioning of the "status quo".  He (RG) will certainly be a front runner when the dust settles, IMO.

[MJZ]

Although I completely agree with your assessment of Rudy, if Fred Thompson throws his hat into the ring (which I think he will) I will have a tough decision. Having worked for Fred and I am proud to say I really know him, you would have to look long and hard to find a finer human being. You will not find a smarter or more honest man around, (as honest as possible in a political venue). As he has been elected to every office he has run for and all by a landslide, garnering virtually 70% of the voting registered democrats, I feel he is flatout electable. A Rudy / Fred ticket would be my dream team.

[SPIDERMAN]

Although I completely agree with your assessment of Rudy, if Fred Thompson throws his hat into the ring (which I think he will) I will have a tough decision. Having worked for Fred and I am proud to say I really know him, you would have to look long and hard to find a finer human being. You will not find a smarter or more honest man around, (as honest as possible in a political venue). As he has been elected to every office he has run for and all by a landslide, garnering virtually 70% of the voting registered democrats, I feel he is flatout electable. A Rudy / Fred ticket would be my dream team.

Is it me, or do actors make better politicians than the supposed real ones ? I agree. Fred's got that special something that says leadership.

B B

[MJZ]

Is it me, or do actors make better politicians than the supposed real ones ? I agree. Fred's got that special something that says leadership.

B B

Plus both are real people that have been totally screwed in divorce court. Quite a few of us can relate to that.

[Travelinshoes]

Point taken, but he should never have been asked the question, IMO.  The whole thing was a witch hunt.  And he was not impeached, either.

Ummm...yes he was.

[SixGun]

Here is probably the greatest example of how the "So called Elite" like Al Gore want us to live but of course thier life is exempt from what they want us peasants to live like.  I'm so glad he is looking out for us, I feel he is the answer to the earth's problems!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-details/Air+miles+Travolta+urges+fans+to+%27do+their+bit%27+for+the+environment/article.do

[Midnight Rider]

Ummm...yes he was.

Excuse me, but I think, if history serves me, that impeachment means you were removed from office.  I don't recall Clinton being removed from office...

Impeachment PROCEEDINGS is a different subject.

Let's see...the last president in my historical reference to RESIGN because he was surely to be impeached was Tricky Dick....And he covered up a breaking and entering, not a BJ.

Then he was pardoned by a man who I personally respect as a good man, with good intentions, in an attempt to get the country back on track.

[MJZ]

If you are wondering, I removed the post after counting to 1,000. BUT:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source im·peach       (ĭm-pēch')  Pronunciation Key 
tr.v.   im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es
To make an accusation against.
To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal. 

[Twolanerider]

Excuse me, but I think, if history serves me, that impeachment means you were removed from office.  I don't recall Clinton being removed from office...

Nope TC.  Impeachment (in this context) comes from the House of Representatives.  Whether it be against a Federal judge or the President (or whomever).  It is the accusation.  If the House votes impeachment the "trial" happens in the Senate.  US Chief Justice presides over the hole thing and the house members are the "prosecutors."  If the Senate votes to convict only then is the office holder removed from his position. 

[hard10]

Impeach:

Usage Note: When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace.

[Midnight Rider]

If you are wondering, I removed the post after counting to 1,000. BUT:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source im·peach       (ĭm-pēch')  Pronunciation Key 
tr.v.   im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es
To make an accusation against.
To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal. 

I stand corrected on the definition of impeachment, but not on the ultimate conclusion:

President Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 of the December 19, 1998, impeachment charge by the House of Representatives. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, arising from the Lewinsky scandal. After a 21-day trial, the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office under the Constitution. The impeachment proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only three Democratic Representatives voting for impeachment. In all, 55 senators voted "not guilty," and 45 voted "guilty" on the charge of perjury. The Senate also acquitted on the obstruction charge with 50 votes cast each way.

While the impeachment process dominated American politics for the better part of the year and took up much of the energy of the Clinton administration as it ran its course, it also failed to win the president's opponents much of the political advantage that they sought. Shortly before the 1998 midterm elections, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, predicted a 32-seat gain in the House for Republicans and according to CNN.com archives from November 1998, Gingrich made far-reaching efforts to link Democratic congressional candidates to President Clinton.[citation needed] This plan actually backfired in favor of the Democrats. Opinion polls throughout the trial illustrated that the public opposed impeaching the president by margins of 65–70% [1] and the President's public job-approval ratings remained extremely high throughout the entire year, even more popular than he had been prior to the scandal.[2] In fact, shortly after his December 1998 impeachment his popularity attained its highest level ever with a 73 percent approval rating, and public perceptions of the Republican majority in Congress diminished.[3] Such may have contributed to the surprise subsequent loss of five seats suffered by the Republican party in the United States House of Representatives in that year's congressional election.[4] The election was largely seen as public vindication for President Clinton and then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, proclaimed that the Democrats had achieved prominent victories in the elections.

However, I do not stand corrected on the "witch hunt" statement, supported by the statistics above.  Total waste of time and taxpayers money which could have been better spent on matters of more importance than whether a man lied about getting a blow job in the oval office.  As evidenced above, who gave a chit other than the Republicans?  It clearly backfired on them, and we got a winner of a President as a result...or was he truely the winner?

History will support the fact of who was better for the country during each of the two terms in the Presidency.

This has gotten way off topic, which was originally about whether you discount a preponderance of evidence, proven by a vast majority of the worlds top scientist, sociologists, and enviornmental chemists, because a certain individual presented the information, who, in this case, is generally looked upon with at least some pre-judice by certain people.  I do not shoot the messenger because he tells me something I don't want to hear.

[Twolanerider]

TC needs an adult beverage  .

[Midnight Rider]

Technical definitions aside, the INTENT of an impeachment process is to REMOVE the incumbent from office, and the charges should be serious enough to warrant such action, time, and money spent doing so.

Clearly, the intent was to remove Clinton from office.

Also, do not forget that the military action in Iraq was a victory by military forces built by Bill Clinton's administration, NOT George W.  He went to war with the forces and technology put in place by the admininstration prior to his "election".

[Midnight Rider]

TC needs an adult beverage  .

Something a bit different than that, Don.  Bad day.  I can really get on a soap box about this kind of stuff, so will step down for the evening before I say anything else to offend anyone.

[Twolanerider]

Technical definitions aside, the INTENT of an impeachment process is to REMOVE the incumbent from office, and the charges should be serious enough to warrant such action, time, and money spent doing so.

Clearly, the intent was to remove Clinton from office.

Also, do not forget that the military action in Iraq was a victory by military forces built by Bill Clinton's administration, NOT George W.  He went to war with the forces and technology put in place by the admininstration prior to his "election".

TC, the vagaries of political impeachment are such that I leave reasons for such things to more wisened souls.  The House, in this case, knew they didn't stand a chance in the Senate.  For reasons that were part of the public evidence record and for reasons they couldn't argue before the Senate the House managers felt compelled to continue.  Hell, part of it was just the process.  They got started and couldn't get off the train.  It's human nature.

Now, as for the "military buildup" of the Clinton administration....   Managing the interwar oversight of Iraq and the problems in the Balkans and elsewhere required the Clinton administration to maintain a more robust military than was ever its intent to begin with.  A reality brought on by the facts of the day; not their (admitted) intent.  Even with this fact many budget lines suffered.  And if you think the uniforms were universally happy with all the things brought in after the honeymoon period of the current Bush administration you're sadly mistaken.  Rumsfeld did not sail a wholly contented ship.  Not even close.

[Twolanerider]

Before whipping the city into shape after it was destroyed by previous stewardships, he was instrumental in bringing the mob to its knees here too as a Federal Prosecutor! He bucked the system and changed parties when he refused to support the Governor in an election. That guy has balls and will stick to his guns. He was a NYer that only wanted what was best for the city. He'll do the same for the country. His handling of the events of 9/11 are almost unprecedented by a politician. Most would have gone running away and handled things remotely or let an Aide do it. I wasn't crazy about some of his agendas, but he was singlehandedly the best thing to happen to NYC in recent times! There's only one candidate for President as of now and that's RUDY!!! Hoist!

Howie, looking at NY state as the big electoral college package that it is how is he still regarded in NYC?  Is the near hero worship that was part of the post 9/11 landscape still close to as palpable.  Obviously in a normal race with a "normal" candidate he'd expect to do better upstate and get his ass kicked in the City. 

Is the post 9/11 favor still strong enough that local sentiment suggests he'd be in an even fight with Senator Clinton for the state in the national election?  I've seen numbers so divergent that I don't trust any of them.  If a Republican can actually take New York, however, that's huge and completely alters the standard electoral arithmetic.

[Hoist!]

Howie, looking at NY state as the big electoral college package that it is how is he still regarded in NYC?  Is the near hero worship that was part of the post 9/11 landscape still close to as palpable.  Obviously in a normal race with a "normal" candidate he'd expect to do better upstate and get his ass kicked in the City. 

Is the post 9/11 favor still strong enough that local sentiment suggests he'd be in an even fight with Senator Clinton for the state in the national election?  I've seen numbers so divergent that I don't trust any of them.  If a Republican can actually take New York, however, that's huge and completely alters the standard electoral arithmetic.

For a Republican to take NY they must take NYC. Gulliani is far more popular than Hillary, even in the city. Even today. People here would love to see him go all the way. Don't forget, on one of the elections, he ran on the Republican and Liberal Parties both. The peolpe of NYC will never forget what he did here. Hoist!

[PHAZE]

Clinton may or may not be judged by historians as our President of the lowest moral character, but you have to admit that his actions demonstrated low moral character and character is a significant factor in anyone that truly intends to lead this country.  If there was more character in the individuals leading this country, we'd have statesmen rather than politicians.

Considering Clinton's actions while in the White House (and Oval Office) the media was easy on him.  Any Republican caught in the same actions would have been absolutely crucifed in the media and probably would have been run out of office.

[MJZ]

I stand corrected on the definition of impeachment, but not on the ultimate conclusion:

President Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 of the December 19, 1998, impeachment charge by the House of Representatives. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, arising from the Lewinsky scandal. After a 21-day trial, the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office under the Constitution. The impeachment proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only three Democratic Representatives voting for impeachment. In all, 55 senators voted "not guilty," and 45 voted "guilty" on the charge of perjury. The Senate also acquitted on the obstruction charge with 50 votes cast each way.

While the impeachment process dominated American politics for the better part of the year and took up much of the energy of the Clinton administration as it ran its course, it also failed to win the president's opponents much of the political advantage that they sought. Shortly before the 1998 midterm elections, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, predicted a 32-seat gain in the House for Republicans and according to CNN.com archives from November 1998, Gingrich made far-reaching efforts to link Democratic congressional candidates to President Clinton.[citation needed] This plan actually backfired in favor of the Democrats. Opinion polls throughout the trial illustrated that the public opposed impeaching the president by margins of 65–70% [1] and the President's public job-approval ratings remained extremely high throughout the entire year, even more popular than he had been prior to the scandal.[2] In fact, shortly after his December 1998 impeachment his popularity attained its highest level ever with a 73 percent approval rating, and public perceptions of the Republican majority in Congress diminished.[3] Such may have contributed to the surprise subsequent loss of five seats suffered by the Republican party in the United States House of Representatives in that year's congressional election.[4] The election was largely seen as public vindication for President Clinton and then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, proclaimed that the Democrats had achieved prominent victories in the elections.

However, I do not stand corrected on the "witch hunt" statement, supported by the statistics above.  Total waste of time and taxpayers money which could have been better spent on matters of more importance than whether a man lied about getting a blow job in the oval office.  As evidenced above, who gave a chit other than the Republicans?  It clearly backfired on them, and we got a winner of a President as a result...or was he truely the winner?

History will support the fact of who was better for the country during each of the two terms in the Presidency.

This has gotten way off topic, which was originally about whether you discount a preponderance of evidence, proven by a vast majority of the worlds top scientist, sociologists, and enviornmental chemists, because a certain individual presented the information, who, in this case, is generally looked upon with at least some pre-judice by certain people.  I do not shoot the messenger because he tells me something I don't want to hear.

Wrong again! I posted the thread and the topic was clearly what a hypocrite Al Gore is and the completely liberal press failing to report anything contrary or slant all news toward their liberal agenda. Like it or not, it happened, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.
Bill Clinton's legacy is and should be written on his memorial "gotta get me sum" or "oral ain't sex". Yep, he was one fine example of the ultimate polititian and/or scumbag.

[Twolanerider]

Clinton may or may not be judged by historians as our President of the lowest moral character, but you have to admit that his actions demonstrated low moral character and character is a significant factor in anyone that truly intends to lead this country.  If there was more character in the individuals leading this country, we'd have statesmen rather than politicians.

Considering Clinton's actions while in the White House (and Oval Office) the media was easy on him.  Any Republican caught in the same actions would have been absolutely crucifed in the media and probably would have been run out of office.

Whether you like Clinton or not there are a few things that have to universally admitted about him.  He's probably the best campaigner any of us have ever seen on the national level.  The guy was just an animal there and loved every minute of it.  One of the few that liked running for the job more than doing it actually.  He's also very very bright.  That intellect and personality kept him out of troubles that might have escalated even worse than they did. 

The kink to the man's personality, however, is that he's a classic narcissist.  A bit less so the arrogance and hubris that typifies his wife's personality (though at the level of office seeker they've all got some of that going on) his personal pecadillos are of the "all about me" variety.

That narcissism and personal arrogance showed in the types of trouble the administration got in to.  The entire Lewinsky mess, the tap dancing he thought was so cute before a Federal judge, File-gate and others.  All were matters of personal pride and behaviors that exhibited attitudes of superiority over others and disdain for anyone else.  Personal disdain.  All varieties of selfishness and conceit.

I don't say this to diminish his impact on the office.  The man got elected twice.  There were things in his administration that were done well.  Others I strongly disagreed with.  But all their "problems" were of this variety.  All matters of personal conceit and narcissism.  When they put their asses on the line it was for personal gain, personal revenge, personal control or personal protection. 

Look at the problem of the prior (collective 12 year) administration for comparison.  When Reagan's administration got in trouble and put their collective asses on the line it was (primarily) the things surrounding Iran-Contra.  It was, in other words, in support of policy rather than personal gain.

Personally, if I had to watch a Presidency feel so strongly about something that it felt that rules had to be bent or things untoward had to be done; knowing that careers would be lost and lives potentially ruined, I'm more sanguine with a personality type that lays themselves out there for matters of policy and state than for matters of personal hubris and protection. 

Ideally an administration works within the confines of the law and never has to stretch, bend or break things to accomplish things deemed important.  But, whether you agree with the policy agenda they're prosecuting or not, I personally am more comfortable with those who lay lives and careers on the line and find themselves later parsing language to support agendas of flag and country than those whose parsing is to avoid discussing dalliances with near children and how many files of those you don't like you were sneaked from the FBI.

[MJZ]

WOW Don, very well said. I consider myself well educated and somewhat intelligent, until I read one of your "makes ya think" post.
These amaze me, I think I will defer to your answers in the future before I begin to type.
Thanks for the post.

[SPIDERMAN]

Ummm...yes he was.

Sorry Dude,
                    It takes both houses of Congress to impeach a President. The Senate DID NOT vote to impeach. Had he actually been impeached as you seem to believe, his Presidency would have ended at that point. You may recall he served out his 2nd full term and was in the Whitehouse until the morning of the current President's Inaguaration.

         Clinton was given a censure in which he had to stand before the members and have the censure and the charges behind it read into the congressional record.

  With all due respect, if you want to debate politics please be accurate in the statements you make. I'll respect your position whether I agree or not so long as you do that

B B

[Twolanerider]

Sorry Dude,
                    It takes both houses of Congress to impeach a President. The Senate DID NOT vote to impeach. Had he actually been impeached as you seem to believe, his Presidency would have ended at that point. You may recall he served out his 2nd full term and was in the Whitehouse until the morning of the current President's Inaguaration.

         Clinton was given a censure in which he had to stand before the members and have the censure and the charges behind it read into the congressional record.

  With all due respect, if you want to debate politics please be accurate in the statements you make. I'll respect your position whether I agree or not so long as you do that

B B

No Brian, that's mistaken.  Impeachment (the first stage in the two stage process of impeachment and conviction) is only the legal statement of charges.  Clinton was impeached.  He was impeached on two of four counts on 19 December 1998.  It wasn't a party line vote either.  There were Republicans who voted against each of the articles and Democrats who voted for some.

[Twolanerider]

Not that this really makes any difference to anything.  But if one wants to get perhaps too technical about these things President Clinton was also the only elected President ever to be impeached.

It's true, the Senate has held two impeachment trials in its history.  But President Johnson was elected as Vice President and had of course ascended to the higher office upon President Lincoln's assassination.  So in much the same vein that President Ford was the only "unelected" President of the United States President Clinton was the only elected President ever to be impeached. 

Certainly sound and fury meaning nothing.  More of a trivial pursuits kind of detail probably.  But someone somewhere has probably built a PhD dissertation around it  .

[SPIDERMAN]

I stand corrected and apologize for my arogance 

B B

[MJZ]

But someone somewhere has probably built a PhD dissertation around it.
Maybe Chelsea Clinton might grab that one for her dissertation.
OK, I'll stop. 

[UltraPolecat]

I stand corrected and apologize for my arogance 

B B

No Apology necessary. WE LOVED IT!

[Midnight Rider]

Here is a table produced by the Pew Charitable Trusts for Excellence in Journalism.  In case you don't know, the Pew Charitable Trusts are among the largest, most prestigious foundations in America.  Totally mainstream.  Their Project for Excellence in Journalism comes out of the top rated Columbia School of Journalism and is one of the few media research organizations without a political axe to grind.  The numbers are derived from a comprehensive study examining 1,149 stories from 17 leading news sources DURING THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL RACE BETWEEN AL GORE AND GEORGE W BUSH.




   Gore   Bush
Positive   13%   24%
Neutral   31%   27%
Negative   56%   49%
Total   100%   100%



Now, if one assumes that the press is "liberal", it stands to reason that Democratic political candidates would tend to have more positive, and less negative stories written about them than would Republican candidates, right?  So how did this happen?  The truth is that the press got caught up in the LIES that were told about Al Gore, The Exaggerator.  For example, the statement that Al Gore "created" the Internet, which first appeared in a Republican Party press release and would be repeated by the "liberal' press thousands of times during the campaign. 

Here's what really happened: In the 1980's, Gore was one of the handful of leaders who foresaw the tremendous potential of Arpanet, an emergency military computer network.  As both congressman and Senator, Gore fought tirelessly for the funding that would turn Arpanet into what is now the Internet.  With this is mind, Gore told Wolf Blitzer in a '99 interview "During my service in the US Congress, i took the initiative in creating the Internet".  What do you suppose he meant?  That he stayed up late nights in his office writing the PASCAL code which allowed packet switching?  No.  What he seemed to be doing was taking credit for a program he championed and funded.  In this particular case, one that revolutionized the information infrastructure of the entire world.

What an asshole...

So, in this particular case, the "liberal" press actually helped get a conservative candidate elected, it seems to me.

[MJZ]

Well said. Informative, well presented and accurate.

[Twolanerider]

Although I completely agree with your assessment of Rudy, if Fred Thompson throws his hat into the ring (which I think he will) I will have a tough decision. Having worked for Fred and I am proud to say I really know him, you would have to look long and hard to find a finer human being. You will not find a smarter or more honest man around, (as honest as possible in a political venue). As he has been elected to every office he has run for and all by a landslide, garnering virtually 70% of the voting registered democrats, I feel he is flatout electable. A Rudy / Fred ticket would be my dream team.

Heluva cut in pay.

[Twolanerider]

Good grief, everyone and their media biases.  What a crock.  There is a bias.  Their isn't a bias.  IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It doesn't matter because no matter how biased one way or the other they might be day to day when a story hits they all smell blood.  The closer that story is to power the more on point they get.  Some more than others.  But enough to get the job done.

In this representative democracy that's all that matters.  I don't care if the reporter is the spawn of Ollie North and Anne Coulter or Dan Rather's cloned twin brother.  As long as they're left alone to be whatever they choose to be.  I can pick and choose.  But I'll know that if someone out there really screws up enough of them will be up his or her ass that the story will get out.

I may have to do some homework on my own to sort out the facts from the reporting.  To find the reality from the spin.  But that's my job in the equation.  And that's fair.  If I'm not doing my part of the legwork I don't deserve to be able to bitch about them anyway.

Now, if you want to see where the bias in US journalism really is it is (not necessarily in terms of error or slant but certainly in terms of types of coverage) American.  That's right.  Compare any recognized generally well regarded American news outlet.  No matter how "liberal" leaning it might be perceived here.  Then watch and read international press regularly.  That feared "liberal" bias pales in comparison when we see how we report on ourselves compared against how the rest of the world commonly reports on us.

So, bias schmias.  Getting a good handle on the news is my responsibility anyway.  At least if I really care to be informed.  Some small degree of bias only means I have to see more sources.  And I should be doing that anyway.  A little independent confirmation is good for the soul and for the truth.

[Ceej]

So, bias schmias.  Getting a good handle on the news is my responsibility anyway.  At least if I really care to be informed.

So true. Yet most American's refuse to take any responsibility regarding news. And it's getting worse, more than 1 in 5 American voters under 30 list Jon Stewart's Daily show as their main news source during the last campaign. Up from 9% in 2000. Scary future.

[iski]

Is there a friendly thread on religion on this board that's as much fun as this one?

Reading along I have discovered so many things about politics I already knew along the lines of - if it's my politician doing some damn thing, it's ok but if your guy does the same exact thing, he a bum fer cryin' out loud (cuz they are not of the same political party donchaknow).

I considered starting a thread on the re-historization of Clinton's impeachment juxtaposed with re-carving Mt. Rushmore with the images of Reagan, Truman, Bush 43, and JFK but decided to give in just a little to my OCD instead.

I for one believe this to be a very wise decision.

[Midnight Rider]

Ask, and ye shall receive....  http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=10685.0

 

[iski]

Ask, and ye shall receive....  http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=10685.0

 

Thank you TC.

I decided not to post about the religion of painting one's self blue and howling at the full moon since some folks for some reason have something against blue paint.

[Twolanerider]

 some folks for some reason have something against blue paint.

Hypocrite, you're on a red bike too!   

[iski]

Hypocrite, you're on a red bike too!   

How quickly it surfaces.....

I have learned it is best not to ride on a bike while howling at the moon covered in blue paint, due to the mass quantities of adult beverages that must be consumed prior to said howlings.  Plus the gals complain more when you jump from the bike into the dogpile that customarily follows.

Painting one's self in red paint while howling at the moon is a sacrelidge of the nth degree, BTW.   

[MJZ]

Thank you TC.

I decided not to post about the religion of painting one's self blue and howling at the full moon since some folks for some reason have something against blue paint.

Hey!

[Twolanerider]

Painting one's self in red paint while howling at the moon is a sacrelidge of the nth degree, BTW.   

Ah man, there's some mental images I didn't have in my head before. 


Weird things is; I like 'em too....

[iski]

Hey!

Not me.

Of course I like blue paint - see above.

[iski]

Ah man, there's some mental images I didn't have in my head before. 


Weird things is; I like 'em too....

Yes we are a strange most misunderstood sect.  I neglected to include the sacrament of consumption of the jello shots that preceeds the activities.

[Twolanerider]

Yes we are a strange most misunderstood sect.  I neglected to include the sacrament of consumption of the jello shots that preceeds the activities.

uh oh, that might mean that I'm a Prospect.  Have visited the mental state of Jello Shots more than several states.  Have also ridden in various unusual "fashion modes" at different times (including sporting a large set of wings and a diaper while yelling "Go Angels" during their World Series Championship).  Gee, I may have found a home?

[iski]

uh oh, that might mean that I'm a Prospect.  Have visited the mental state of Jello Shots more than several states.  Have also ridden in various unusual "fashion modes" at different times (including sporting a large set of wings and a diaper while yelling "Go Angels" during their World Series Championship).  Gee, I may have found a home?

Yes, TLR, it appears we are soulmates of a sort.

As I have aged to near but not quite curmudgeondom, the festivities do not last all weekend.  Usually.  Politically we are quite diverse, formerly we were known as the Beer Party.  One beer - one vote. 2 beers 2 votes.  Etc.

[Twolanerider]

Yes, TLR, it appears we are soulmates of a sort.

As I have aged to near but not quite curmudgeondom, the festivities do not last all weekend.  Usually.  Politically we are quite diverse, formerly we were known as the Beer Party.  One beer - one vote. 2 beers 2 votes.  Etc.

Water, I have exercised my franchise to cast my vote on important issues of the day (and night) via precisely this same method.  It seems, however, that our structure is more informal.  Finding members where they may be. 

I believe our brothers across the Pond have a more formal organization.  One might take a look at The Official Monster Raving Loony Party.  I believe these are people truly dedicated to their belief systems: http://www.omrlp.com/

[Midnight Rider]

Do you get crackers with those Jello Shooters?...it helps later on.

I have partaken of the Blue test tube shooters with a nice lady on my lap once or twice...now THAT was true witnessing!!

[Twolanerider]

Do you get crackers with those Jello Shooters?...it helps later on.

I have partaken of the Blue test tube shooters with a nice lady on my lap once or twice...now THAT was true witnessing!!

Oh man that brought back a memory.  There was this party......  (how many good stories start that way?).

Anyway, there was this party.  I got a call from a couple friends, really good old friends, Tammie and Ann.  Ann says they're taking me to a party.  I get there and it's best described as, well.... a sort of R rated adult themed Star Trek party.  The best part, however, was the green Orion slave girls.  These girls could dance.  Oh man.  That could have been a religion to bow down before.

[iski]

Water, I have exercised my franchise to cast my vote on important issues of the day (and night) via precisely this same method.  It seems, however, that our structure is more informal.  Finding members where they may be. 

I believe our brothers across the Pond have a more formal organization.  One might take a look at The Official Monster Raving Loony Party.  I believe these are people truly dedicated to their belief systems: http://www.omrlp.com/

It does appear to be more formal.  If we had a website some would immediately request it be taken down, for lack of principles.  Or for spouting principles.  Either way.  Unless someone formally objected.  In that case, exceptions might be made, since nobody ever figured out what the platform was and they might be on to something.

Reminds me, this place could use a Friday beer thread.  I wonder if starting one on Monday is too soon?

[Twolanerider]

Reminds me, this place could use a Friday beer thread.  I wonder if starting one on Monday is too soon?

I would say most definitely not too soon.  After all, it's important to work our up to the important things.  A guy has to pace himself in these advancing years.  Starting to drink on Monday to work up to Friday seems like just responsible drinking to me.

[iski]

I would say most definitely not too soon.  After all, it's important to work our up to the important things.  A guy has to pace himself in these advancing years.  Starting to drink on Monday to work up to Friday seems like just responsible drinking to me.

I never had a brother.  That anyone told me about, anyway.  Yet somehow, we might be related....

I will buy the first round.

[harleydiva]

Do you get crackers with those Jello Shooters?...it helps later on.

I have partaken of the Blue test tube shooters with a nice lady on my lap once or twice...now THAT was true witnessing!!

I bet that was a sight to see. 

[Twolanerider]

I never had a brother.  That anyone told me about, anyway.  Yet somehow, we might be related....

I will buy the first round.

Ski, me either (a brother).  But there's kinship there somewhere  .

[iski]

Ski, me either (a brother).  But there's kinship there somewhere  .

Agreed.

Wondering.... I have been a CNR for quite a few years now.  Very proud of the numerous contributions to society, etc. and was wondering if you are also a CNR (Certified Nipple Reader)?  I read only the femalian variety of nipplages BTW.

[Twolanerider]

Agreed.

Wondering.... I have been a CNR for quite a few years now.  Very proud of the numerous contributions to society, etc. and was wondering if you are also a CNR (Certified Nipple Reader)?  I read only the femalian variety of nipplages BTW.

I have my rating.  But it got me in trouble once.  The only time I can ever remember actually being embarassed came as a result.

A buddy was in hospital.  "Liquid diet" orders and lots of other restrictions.  Anything he ingested was coming through a straw or a baby bottle contraption.

His favorite beverage was a particular Scotch.  So I was going to get a bottle and tape the top of a baby bottle to it take to the hospital. 

Wanding around this convenience/liquor store.  It has a small section of baby-type supplies so I know these things should be there somewhere.  After a few minutes give up and walk to the counter to ask for help.  This cherubic looking very early 20s young lady beams a huge smile and asks "can I help you."  Without really thinking it through I ask "where do you keep your nipples?"

At first she had this rather surprised look on her face.  Then she actually grinned a little. The I realized what I'd said and tried to explain that I was looking the nipple tops for the baby bottles.  She laughed.  I felt 99 and 44/100% stupid.  But it all ended well.

[iski]

 
 

[SixGun]

I leave the lights on all day.

I start my car and let it run for an hour extra in the morning.

I run my gas logs with the windows open.

I run my Kerosene heater in the garage with the door open

I drive with OD off to run at a higher RPM.

I pull my pontoon boat around weather I use it or not.

Bottom line is...I've tried to expand my carbon footprint to the size of Al Gore's so I will be following his principles but I just can't expend that much energy no matter what I do.